Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

Well, we have a, we have a quorum, but we're going to be taking or counting votes. We want to make sure you get taken care of. And for anyone who has a bill up today before the Committee, I ask you to please come over.

This will be a short meeting, and should you not appear on time, we may just recess. So we have six measures listed on the daily file on today's agenda, but we have not received AB 3121 or AB 3264 yet, so we will only be hearing the remaining four measures at this time.

Due to the late timing of this hearing, all measures being heard today will be eligible for a do pass motion. Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments.

The Department of Finance has let us know that they do not have any files for the measures being heard today, so they will not be providing comments on these measures. Before we begin hearing testimony on the measures, we need to establish a quorum. Madam Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. So now we're going to move on to the regular business of the day. We will start with file item number two. Senator Glazer, you're here on AB 1205, presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair. And I am presenting on behalf of Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan. You are familiar with this bill. I will speak to the fiscal effects directly. When a student graduates on time, the good news for the state is that means another student can fill that slot. And we know we have impactions on a lot of our campuses.

The bill before you is really focused on that. Getting kids through college in a timely way, not having them leave with no degree and no debt. This bill extends the sunset. Established in 2016, the four year graduation rate in that year was 19%. Today it's 38%.

Because of the work of bills like this and the work of the leadership on the campuses, we've really made great progress doubling the graduation rate in eight years and the cost savings that provides. There's minor costs associated with continuing this program and a reporting requirement. I think it's well worth it. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? Testify in support. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in opposition? Any questions from the Committee?

I'll move the bill.

There is a motion. Seeing that the Department of Finance is not with us, Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration and ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much for being on time and appreciate the comments and thank the Assemblymember. This is a really important bill and we save money when students graduate on time, as does the family. So I thank you for this. There is a motion. The motion is do pass. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is five to zero. We will put it on call. I'm gonna have to get control of the Committee here, but we are gonna put this on call for the absent Members. So thank you very much. Assemblymember Ramos, welcome. File item number three, AB 2348. This is eligible for a do pass motion today. So welcome.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 2348 is a Bill that makes simple clarifications to the Feather Alert. Costs associated with the Bill are related to local law enforcement agencies activating the Feather Alert once requested by the California Highway Patrol. I ask for your aye vote.

Very good. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? As I indicated to you previously, the Department of Finance is not with us, so we'll see. There is a motion. Are there any questions or comments? If not, Assemblymember, you may conclude.

Thank you. I asked for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate you being on time as well. Very, very important bill. So we do have a motion. Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has five votes, five to zero. We will put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have two other authors that we're waiting for. Want to see if either Assemblymember Bennett or Assemblymember Juan Carrillo or Assemblymember Eloise Reyes is within earshot.

It would be good if you could get over here so we can finish up our hearing today and move your bills to the Senate Floor. I'm assuming that's important to you. So we'll take a very quick recess and see if we can get ahold of either one of them.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will come back to order, and you're in luck. Today you get to hear from Senator Becker, who has agreed to present item number four, which is ACR 210, by Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you so much for agreeing to do that today. Take it away. We have some tough questions, so be prepared.

All right, this'll mean I'll be getting into deep detail about marine protected areas, but I am here to present ACR 120. Which declares Legislature support for new and existing marine protected areas and urges state agencies, councils, and commissions to prioritize these areas. As this is a resolution and does not have force of law.

It is a resolution, it's not a force of law. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. As we articulated, the Department of Finance is not with us to comment on this, so we're going to see if there's anyone here in support.

Thank you Madam Chair, Victoria Rome with NRDC in support.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Laura Dehan with Environment California in support.

Very good. Thank you so much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone in opposition?

Seeing none. I will bring it back to the Committee. Any comments, questions? Seeing none. There is a motion. The motion is do pass to the Senate... it is, resolution to be adopted and referred to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is three to two. We will put that on call for the absent Members. So now would probably be a really good time to advise the absent Members that they can be absent no longer. We need them to show up so we can finish our hearing today.

And then we have one more bill, which is file Item number 1, AB 98 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo and Assembly Member Eloise Reyes. And I'm told he's on his way, so we'll take a recess for one minute and see if he can make it in time. So we will be in recess for a few minutes and see if we can get our Committee Members here to vote, and then we'll take this up when they're free to go.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will come back to order. Welcome, Assembly Members. We're glad to have you here with us. We're on file Item number 1, AB 98 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo and Assembly Member Reyes. Welcome. Floor is yours.

Thank you, and thank you for being so patient with us. I'll let Assembly Member Eloise Reyes begin. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 98, presented here by my colleague Assembly Member Juan Carrillo and myself, will provide a number of regulations regarding warehouses. The purpose of AB 98 is to provide common sense policies related to the siting and planning of logistics developments across California, where in some areas, like the Inland Empire, we have over 4,000 warehouses taking up over one billion square feet, resulting in over 600,000 truck trips per day. AB 98 was thoughtfully crafted, but we do want to make clear that there are areas that still have some concerns and will be the subject of further discussions in the future.

The bill does have significant benefits for the community as we move forward, including placing 21st century building standards for new warehouses, prohibiting heavy-duty diesel truck aisles from being adjacent to sensitive receptor property lines, placing mandatory update of truck routes statewide to ensure trucks do not route themselves through residential streets and communities, requiring two for one replacement for homes demolished in order to make room for more logistics developments, and 12 months payment to displaced renters.

AB 98 puts in place significant property line buffers for new warehouses and included also in AB 98 as an interim report in 2028 that allows for us to track our progress in reducing emissions and evaluating our next steps. AB 98 is a part of the work that is necessary to protect the health of our communities.

This is our first step, not something that happened overnight. I have been working on this very subject for almost a decade since I arrived eight years ago and have introduced legislation every single session. And I'm so proud to have Assembly Member Carrillo take the lead in this bill today that we present to you. And with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. I neglected to say when you arrived, but I said it throughout the hearing that this enjoys a do pass motion, given the lateness of the session, so we're going to... and the Department of Finance will not be here today to respond to the cost impacts to the state.

So we're going to move on to the people who would like to testify in support. I'd like to welcome you to come forward to the mic. State your name and your affiliation, if you could. Yes. And the reminder is this is a fiscal committee, so we're focusing on the fiscal. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is James Thuerwachter. I'm with the California State Council of Laborers. We represent over 80,000 men and women who work in the heavy construction industry. Many directly work in the tilt-up and warehouse logistics sector as well. Thank you for your time, and we want to thank the authors for their dedication and hard work on this very important measure.

Over the past several months, the Laborers have worked tirelessly in good faith with many key stakeholders, also with leadership, in identifying a pragmatic and balanced approach to addressing air quality concerns associated with logistics and protecting the thousands of union jobs with building these facilities.

AB 98 brings innovative solutions to tackle immediate air quality, safety, and supply chain issues, while also bringing our distribution process into the 21st century. The work associated with industrial warehouse construction has provided the opportunity for thousands of hard-working Laborers and other union members to purchase homes and build for their families' future in the very communities in which they work. This is very important to us and we take great pride in doing so.

These groups, there will be groups and organizations here today who will ask you to oppose AB 98, that will contend that the bill does not go far enough. Others will say it goes too far. We ask you today to support this measure because it's a balanced approach. It's fair for the state, it's fair for communities, and it's fair for workers. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jassy Grewal, here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council. And to make sure that we're just staying on the cost part of this, I just want to address the hidden cost to communities and the hidden cost to workers if we do not address this issue and allow the status quo to continue. Research has well documented the negative and environmental health impacts of warehousing. So this can come at the cost of health impacts due to bad air quality.

So folks having to have increased cost in terms of health care, especially for families that don't have preexisting conditions related to asthma and other things, are not having to take that as a part of their health plans. Across San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, there are over 4.6 million at-risk individuals being exposed to unhealthy air levels, unhealthy levels of ozone and particle pollution each and every day.

The other negative health, the other negative impact that is felt amongst communities is around their residential homes being demolished or depreciation in value for folks that can afford homes. So that is another cost that's hidden to communities as well as to workers.

And then, sorry, just going back to the health impacts. If folks are having to miss days due to health impacts from bad air quality, that's days missed away from work. So that is coming from workers having to use paid sick days or taking unpaid leave or in the cost of daycare because schools will shut down due to bad air quality.

And so there's just a lot of hidden costs to communities when it comes to the impact of warehousing. It is unjust to place the public health burden on historically disadvantaged communities who are seeing staggering decline in their quality of life when these facilities are sited next to their homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors.

While this bill is not perfect, we still think it moves California in the right direction towards protecting our most vulnerable communities, but more work is still needed. But acknowledging that more work is still needed, we have the opportunity today to establish this baseline standard of protections from warehouse development for all California communities, so we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Ben Golombek on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Our official position is neutral, but we are supportive of this strong compromise moving forward and appreciate the author's hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Keith Dunn on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council in support. Appreciate the years of work by the author and Members. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Todd Bloomstine for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association. Official neutral position, and would align our comments with the Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Melanie Perron on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in support.

Thank you.

Pat Joyce on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. Similarly aligned, are neutral but supportive. Thank you.

Thank you.

Courtney Jensen on behalf of the International Warehouse Logistics Association in a neutral position, but align our comments with Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support.

Malik Bynum, United Domestic Workers, AFSCME Local 3930, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about opposition?

Thank you, Chair and Members. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, here in opposition to AB 98. First and foremost, AB 98 was introduced for the first time just in the final days of the legislative session after months of closed door negotiations where cities, counties, environmental justice, and other key stakeholders were excluded.

On the costs associated with what we're seeing in the new bill, AB 98 thrusts extensive circulation element update requirements on all local governments, 483 cities and 58 counties, with no regard to the actual approval and development of logistic use in warehouses in communities, and the only enforcement fines of $50,000 every six months are on local governments to complete this circulation element update, with no other enforcement provisions in the bill around trucking standards or warehouse greening.

Counties have estimated that circulation element update costs would be between 100,000 and 500,000 individually, approximately six million to 29 million for all 58 counties to comply with this requirement. Cities estimate a broader cost range between 100,000 to the low millions, approximately 48 million to 720 million for all 483 cities to comply with the circulation element requirements due to the greater complexities of incorporating traffic patterns and fewer choices to deconflict freight movement from residential traffic on cities' road networks.

AB 98 disregards the enormous local costs that would likely be quadrupled from additional legislation this year that will require a safety element update, a conservation element update, bicycle safety updates, along with this circulation element in AB 98. We could have addressed these concerns and ways to reduce these costs on local governments had we had a seat at the table. We urge a no vote on AB 98.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Skyler Wonnacott, here with the California Business Properties Association and NAIOP California, as well as a coalition in opposition of 18 business groups. The State of California is one of the largest owners and leasers of warehouse space, impacting vital agencies like Caltrans, yet there has been no thorough analysis of economic consequences of this bill.

And let me be clear: there are significant economic impacts. Extensive analysis showed that reduced market share in sector leads directly to job losses and business, and decreased in state local tax revenue. Businesses increasingly citing California's stringent regulatory environment as a major factor in their decision to leave the state. Meanwhile, the state, like Google, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina, are pouring billions into their trade sectors to lure these companies away. The data doesn't lie. The bill puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

The bill mandates the adoption of new technologies, some that are still in the costly first generation phase and others that don't even exist yet. This will further drive up costs. It will also change the way cities and counties and their planning processes, adding even more financial burdens and delays.

What's more, this bill imposes fines and noncompliance on permitting entities, tracking on additional costs. It extends timelines for developers, pushing projects out of the state or into neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada. The cumulative effect? A chilling effect on investment in California, ultimately leading to middle class job losses. In the trade sector where the average wage is over $87,000 a year, this is particularly devastating.

This sector is a key driver of the middle class homeownership in the Inland Empire and is a vital source of well-paying jobs for Latinos, those without college education, and immigrants. Since 2006, California has already lost over a half a billion in tax revenue due to the shrinking market share in this sector. At a time when the state and local budgets are under pressure, this bill, AB 98, threatens to further erode critical tax revenue now and in the future. Let's not let this bill undermine our economy, our jobs, and our future, and we urge a no vote.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair and Members, Jason Gonsalves, representing the cities of Elk Grove, Fontana, Roseville, Chino, Lakewood, Kerman, and Industry, in strong opposition. I guess the good news is we'd probably have 40 or plus more in opposition if there was more time for them to know what's coming their way. But on the fiscal aspect, the message...

I should have stated it at the beginning, and I apologize. Two, four, and two guests. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Daniel Conway, California Grocers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Max Perry on behalf of the Cities of Rialto and Riverside and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, also in opposition.

Thank you very much.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California and those mid-sized businesses that will be affected by this when they try to expand and upgrade. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the Community Alliance with the Family Farmers in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Stockton in opposition.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the Cities of Bakersfield, Beaumont, Corona, Eastvale, Rancho Cucamonga, and Merced, in opposition. Also been asked to express the opposition of California Association for Local Economic Development. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Neuburger on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition. And also aligning with the estimate that Cal Cites provided.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of the City of Visalia and the Milk Producers Council in opposition.

Thank you.

Geoff Neill representing the City of Chula Vista, and on behalf of my colleagues at the Urban Counties of California, also opposed.

Thank you very much.

Asha Sharma on behalf of the People's Collective for Environmental Justice, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and CleanEarth4Kids in opposition, reiterating there's no EJ at the table. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ruby Acevedo, Communities for a Better Environment, in opposition.

Thank you.

Amy Jenkins on behalf of the City of Ontario in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Spencer Street on behalf of the Cities of Chino Hills, Compton, Dinuba, Hesperia, and Irvine in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, registering our opposition. Also wanted to register for the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and Environmental Health Coalition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katie Valenzuela with the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, also on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, Central California Asthma Collaborative, and Valley Improvement Projects, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ravahn Samati, California Environmental Justice Alliance, registering opposition for Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, Center for Race, Poverty, and Environment, as well as CEJA, California Environmental Justice Alliance.

Thank you.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of the California Business Roundtable and the City of Pico Rivera, opposition.

Thank you.

Phoebe Seaton with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. Also on behalf of Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and Cultiva La Salud, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Counties of Fresno, Tulare, Kern, Placer, and San Joaquin, all in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members, Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of both the Orange County Business Council and the City of San Diego in opposition.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in opposition.

Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the California Building Officials in opposition.

Good afternoon. Anya Lawler on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

Thank you.

Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of Ace in opposition.

Is there anyone else in opposition? Okay. Seeing no opposition, as I said before, the Department of Finance is not with us. Any questions or comments by the Committee? Senator.

Thank you. I just want to make sure. You know, we've had conversations on a policy standpoint, but I'd like to move it over to the fiscal standpoint. There has been a lot of concerns from opposition, and I know you guys have been working on this. You in particular have been working on this for a number of years. Are we in agreement that there are also going to be some efforts to mitigate and kind of fix some of the things that opposition is concerned with in the future? Okay. From both authors?

Yes.

All right, I move the bill.

Quick comment. First of all, appreciate everybody in the room. Appreciate all the, mostly appreciate all of the outreach from everybody. You know, it's not very often that I get like a handwritten letter from one of my mayors. One of my council members just came through here to that mic.

So, you know, when you're in Sacramento, it's front row seat to all those local elected officials. They can come right over on their lunch hour to this hearing. And they're really struggling with this one.

I have a lot of, as I told you, Assembly Member Carrillo, I have a lot of local opposition. And so I am going to vote aye in here today, but I want to make it really clear that I'm reserving the right on the floor to cast a different vote. I'm looking at this bill very carefully.

I need to understand the financial ramifications at a local level. And I'll tell you right now, right out of the gate, at first glance, I feel like cities or high density areas are disadvantaged by this law because they have less land to work with.

And therefore one of you got up and said, hey, the setbacks allow for people to live, work, play in one space. Sure, but not within 900 ft of where they're working. So that makes it harder for us to build housing when you're dealing with small spaces in Sacramento and Elk Grove and places like that. So I just need a little more time to look at it. I know I have a very little time, but I hopefully at least have a couple more hours to review it.

I will say if there is one thing giving me some comfort in this, it's that I know that this particular author, and I know you've worked on it for a long time, but I know you're a subject matter expert that comes from a planning division in a city and that gives me a little bit of comfort there. But I need, my eyes need to continue to review this for my own region's impacts.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Most of my issues were stated the other day on the policy part. The fiscal part of this is down to this. There's major state costs to implementing this, and we don't have a major state budget to be able to meet those costs.

And there's also even more major local cities costs on both ends, both their revenue side from economic development perspective, but also from the infrastructure side and the planning. And you know that. All the planning, all those studies, all of those things cost money.

So in the environment that we're in, especially in the uncertain environment that we're in, as far as our revenues are concerned. They seem to be shrinking, and we don't have a good handle on that. It is hard for me to support a bill that is going to put a strain on both those sides, all those sides of the economic picture for us at this time.

The other part of that is, if you're not going to include the people who are most fiscally responsible for trying to comply with your legislation, if you're not going to include them at the table to get their input, it's hard for me to support that. So this, I will not be supporting it.

I wish you would take it back, include some of the other groups that need to be included, in the EJ groups and also the cities and the counties, and come to an agreement on how this can be implemented without bankrupting everybody.

Any other comments, questions? Senator Becker.

Colleagues, I'll still be reviewing it, but certainly supporting it here today in probation. I appreciate your long, hard work on it.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to align my comments with my colleague from Sacramento area. As someone who spent 12 years in local government, I know the concerns, and I've heard from many of the cities in my district, but I understand what you're trying to achieve here and also kind of yield to your expertise as a former planner because I know what goes into that work. So I know you're not doing it willy nilly, but definitely need to get into the weeds a little bit more between now and the floor vote. Thank you.

So let me just say that I appreciate all the comments, and I do appreciate you bringing this forward. Assembly Member Reyes, we had long conversations over a prior bill that you were working on.

And it's interesting because the opposition is on, is from two sides of the issue. The environmentalists, who would like to see less of these facilities, and the cities, who want to see more flexibility to be able to control their own future. And coming from local government, I'm sensitive to that.

And so it's a challenge to kind of drive this truck right through the middle. And I appreciate that, all the work that you've done. The motion is do pass here. I'll allow you to conclude, and then we'll take up our vote next. So if you'd like to make comments in regards to any of the things that were said.

Thank you again for having us here. In closing, I'd just like to address some of the questions that have been raised and the notion that this bill, AB 98, is going to introduce new requirements on counties' and cities' general plans, as well as all the mandated elements in the general plan, including the circulation element.

Those are already in place by state law and by planning law. Cities, counties, they already have to comply with an updated general plan, and as well as those mandated seven, I believe, mandated elements, the circulation plan being one of them. So I just want to clarify that this is not a new concept.

It's been in place for many decades, and cities and counties have to comply with it. There's nothing in this bill that mandates anything new from cities. Again, it's already been in place. And there'll be some cost because cities have to update, you know, plans and elements, and those costs are already done through the budgeting process in those cities and counties.

So when we heard that 483 cities and 58 counties and the amount of money that goes into updating these plans, it is true. However, there is nothing on AB 98 that says that they have to come up with new sources to be able to comply with state law. That's one thing.

Can I interrupt you real quickly? Does the bill, and we've all read it in a fairly condensed time period. Does it require that the updates be done before the regular cycle would come for that particular city or the county? Or how is it set up in the bill?

We align it with the required housing element that gets to be updated every eight years. So in that sense, cities that, all cities have to comply with it, not because of AB 98. But housing elements have to be updated every eight years.

That's how we align those cities that don't have a compliant circulation elements so that the work can be done, can be done concurrently. With the exception of San Bernardino, the Inland Empire, and those cities that are listed in the bill specifically where the industry has been building warehouses.

That's very helpful because I think that deals with the whole issue of it's going to cost us money now. If they can do it during the regular update, then they'll have to do it anyway.

You have to do it anyway.

Okay. Very good. Yes. Yes, Senator.

I believe they have a date, January 1 of 26, it has to be done.

That's what he just said.

It doesn't align with their housing thing. If somebody just did their housing in 2024, their next housing element is 2032. This has to be updated in 2026.

Those cities in the Inland Empire.

All right, so you may, you may continue.

I beg your pardon?

If you have other things to say, you may continue it in your close.

I just want to close by asking for your vote and support on this bill. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. No further comments. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has five to one votes. We're gonna put it on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. Appreciate. Appreciate you being here. So let's go through the role through the rolls one last time. We'll start with. Well, this was file item number one, so we'll move on.

If I could ask for the audience to please exit quietly so we can finish our business here today. I know they're really Low. Okay, we're going to start with file item number two. Since we just took up file item number one, which is AB 1205 by Assemblymember Bauer Cahan, presented by Senator Glazier. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Seven to zero. Moving on to file item number three, AB 2348 by Assembly Member Ramos. The absent Members, please motion is due.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, seven to zero. File item number four, ACR 210, by Assemblymember Bennett. The absent Members, please.

[Roll Call]

Five to two, that resolution is adopted. So we will wait for one final Member to show up for file item number one. So we'll call the roll, the final roll for item number one, AB 98, by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo and assemblymember Reyes This Bill is out five to one.

My understanding is that Senator Jones will not be returning to the Committee. Okay. All right, so thank you very much for everyone who participated in today's hearing. We have now concluded the agenda. The meeting of the Senate Committee on appropriations is adjourned.